“Should Stability Be Punished? The Case of Somaliland in a Rigid International Order”

In international politics, stability is often praised as a cornerstone of peace and development. It is the benchmark by which fragile states are judged and the goal toward which countless international interventions are directed. Yet, in a world governed not only by principles but also by rigid norms and political calculations, stability alone does not always guarantee acceptance. The case of Somaliland raises a difficult and uncomfortable question: Should stability be punished when it does not fit within established political frameworks?

For more than three decades, Somaliland has demonstrated what many recognized states still struggle to achieve. Since 1991, following the collapse of Somalia, it has built a functioning system of governance rooted in local reconciliation, democratic elections, and institutional development. In a region often associated with conflict and instability, Somaliland has offered a different narrative one of resilience, order, and self-reliance.

But despite these achievements, Somaliland has long remained outside the circle of formally recognized states.

This exclusion reveals a deeper tension within the international system. On one hand, global institutions such as the United Nations and the African Union promote values like peace, democracy, and good governance. On the other hand, they remain bound by long-standing doctrines particularly the principle of territorial integrity that discourage the recognition of new states emerging from existing ones.

In theory, these rules are designed to maintain order and prevent endless fragmentation. In practice, however, they can produce outcomes that seem disconnected from reality. Somaliland, a relatively stable and self-governing entity, has struggled for recognition, while other states facing persistent instability continue to enjoy full international legitimacy.

This is where the paradox becomes impossible to ignore.

If stability is the goal, why is it not rewarded? If governance and legitimacy are measured by performance, why has Somaliland remained excluded for so long? The answer lies not in Somaliland’s shortcomings, but in the rigidity of the system itself. International recognition is not simply a reflection of facts on the ground it is a political decision shaped by regional sensitivities, diplomatic caution, and the fear of setting precedents.

For the African Union, recognizing Somaliland has historically raised concerns about encouraging similar claims across the continent. For the broader international community, it has risked complicating relations with Somalia, a state whose sovereignty has long been formally upheld. As a result, Somaliland has been caught in a prolonged diplomatic stalemate: acknowledged informally, but denied formally.

Yet, the cost of this stalemate is not abstract it is deeply human.

Without recognition, Somaliland has faced limitations that affect its development and its people. It has struggled to access international finance, to participate fully in global trade, and to engage as an equal partner in diplomatic forums. Its citizens, despite living in relative peace, have remained excluded from the full benefits of international belonging. Stability, in this sense, has often become a quiet burden rather than a celebrated achievement.

And still, Somaliland has persisted.

It has continued to build institutions, hold elections, and maintain security not because it was rewarded, but because it chose a different path. This persistence challenges a fundamental assumption in international relations: that legitimacy flows only from recognition. Somaliland suggests the opposite that legitimacy can be built from within, even in the absence of external validation.

Today, however, a new dimension is beginning to reshape this narrative. With Israel extending recognition, Somaliland has, for the first time, secured acknowledgment from a member of the United Nations. While this does not yet translate into widespread international acceptance, it represents a significant symbolic and diplomatic shift. It signals that the long-standing wall of non-recognition may no longer be as absolute as it once seemed.

At the same time, global dynamics are continuing to evolve. As the international system gradually moves toward a more multipolar structure, states are becoming more pragmatic in their engagements. Somaliland’s growing ties with partners such as Taiwan reflect this trend an emerging willingness to engage based on shared interests rather than formal status.

These developments do not yet amount to universal recognition, but they signal a change in thinking. They suggest that the rigid boundaries of the past may not hold forever.

Ultimately, the question is not only about Somaliland. It is about the kind of international order the world wishes to uphold. Should it be one that rigidly adheres to established norms, even when they contradict lived realities? Or should it evolve to recognize and reward those who demonstrate stability, governance, and accountability?

Somaliland’s story does not offer easy answers. But it does demand honest reflection.

Because if stability is not recognized if it is, in effect, sidelined or ignored then the message sent to the world is troubling: that success alone is not enough, and that political orthodoxy can outweigh practical achievement.

Yet, if recent developments are any indication, that message may slowly be changing.

And perhaps, at long last, Somaliland is beginning to move from being a state without recognition to a state on the path toward it.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)